Eh, that's still just correlation across a state vector. Honestly, quantum entanglement is proof that the many worlds / simultaneous superposition interpretation of quantum mechanics is bollocks.
Really all QM says is that there's some probability distribution of an outcome, and you don't know what outcome occurred until you take a measurement.
For example, you could imagine a world simulator that uses probabilistic logic gates. Where with some probability a bit could be 0 or 1. Now you could say that the bit is in some superposition or is 0 in world A and 1 in world B, blah blah.
But that's dumb. Really, the bit is 0 or 1 with some probability of the universe simulator. And you don't know which, until you observe its value.
That's only half of the argument though. The other half is how does entanglement correctly coordinate the probabilistic outcomes, when there's no causal order? (meaning, you can't assume there's a sort of signal that travels between them, because in a different reference frame the signal would have to travel back in time)
No, it’s the whole argument. You could imagine a probabilistic gate splitter that outputs two bits. Such that bits AB are either 01 or 10 with a probability distribution. That is you don’t know which of the two states you’re in, but you do know that bit A is always opposite of bit B. You can then take the bits as far apart as you want. And then measuring bit A will tell you the state of bit B. Nothing collapsed across interstellar space. Bit A and B were always in a certain state. We just don’t know which until we take a measurement. And since they’re correlated, we only need to measure one of them.
Hehe I wish. You are forgetting that you can locally decide the measurement setting. For a setting the bits are (anti)correlated, for another one they are uncorrelated. If they always had a value, not only it wouldn’t work: even assigning a value per measurement setting wouldn’t work because it is what we call local realism, which is disproved by Bell’s theorem. Look up the GHZ game for an example of a system where you cannot assign pre-existing values consistently. (In the CHSH game, which is the equivalent of Bell’s theorem the explanation is a bit more subtle). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_pseudo-telepathy
Agree that it is overall an improved experience. After upgrading, I discovered that a VPN app wanted access to my Documents folder. No reason it would need that, so I simply denied it. Lo and behold, the app continues to work just fine as expected. IMO, this alone is a big reason to upgrade to Catalina.
I wonder if maybe it just stores a settings file in there or something?
I've seen similar things with apps that request access to Dropbox or Google Drive just not being scoped granularly enough, so they just ask for access to your entire account to control a single file or folder. Which leads to a shitty situation, either you give up functionality like being able to declaratively override settings and sync them between machines, or you compromise your security and allow access. There's no way the PM for the product actually cares about granular permission scoping, so of course nobody actually implements in a safer way where you don't have to make this choice.
I haven't looked closely at the new MacOS permissions and how granular they can be, but I'm kind of curious how this will turn out. I suspect the average person will just get used to clicking allow on everything, so developers won't actually care about only asking for what they need, and not much will actually improve about security. But I hope to be proven wrong.
Apple provides APIs for saving app settings in the app's sandbox. They require no additional permissions.
You're probably right that it's not nefarious in this app's case, but rather just developer ignorance. But even so, this is the right path to nudge developers towards better security practices.
Also, the permissions are contextual. I didn't see this dialog until I launched the app. Similarly, the first time an app wants to show a notification, the system prompts you to allow / deny it. I'm sure Apple can polish this more over time. But I will take this over the "nearly full-system access by default" paradigms that dominate desktop OS's.
I've seen a number of apps that store settings or presets in Documents. Kind of the same ideas as dotfiles in your home directory, which seems pretty reasonable and I don't think there's one agreed right place for any of this.
A nice benefit of storing them in Documents is that it syncs to icloud automatically even on the free tier, so you can share it between all your computers.
Had the same concern, but the dialog tells you how to change it. Not only that, it'll take you directly to the correct location in system preferences, where all the apps & their permission status are listed.
So what you are saying is that you don't trust the application to access your Documents folder, but you trust it with creating a VPN tunnel to keep your network traffic safe?
uhmm....
To me, it seems that if the Documents permission dialogue in fact caught the app doing anything bad, it should remove all trust for the app and the developer. It's all or nothing, really.
No, what I'm saying is that a VPN application does not need access to my Documents folder, and if it tries to access it, then I'd like to know about it.
Nor do I entrust it with all my network traffic. As to whether it warrants completely removing the app or not, it's up to the user to decide, isn't it?
Agreed. If you're the author and Alice and Bob are the imaginary characters in your example, then you get to decide their gender.
Same as an author who is writing a novel, is free to invent characters and assign gender, sexual orientation, and any other character traits they want.
It's your story, they are your characters. You decide if it's a he, she, xe, or whatever.
its the same people that are on twitter and then go to work and school and bring this with them. they should be ignored in real life too but nobody wants to deal with the hysterical accusations from the far left
most people on twitter and a lot of the verified people basically police each other for how "woke" they can be with social justice
and if anyone steps out of line against the insane number of rules about who you might slightly offend then you get mobbed and "cancelled" by being called a racist/sexist/bigot/transphobe/nazi and whatever cool word is in use until you lose your job and lifestyle and are permanently branded a terrible person
E-cigs should be banned. Same as cigarettes of any kind. In fact, any airborne addictive substance should be blanked banned.
I used to rent an apartment that had a shared ventilation system. It was a no-smoking building. My neighbors decided to ignore this. The smell would get so bad it would make your head spin. The building management did nothing, because it was hard to prove which neighbor was the culprit. I ultimately had to break the lease & move out.
I don't care if you drink yourself under the table, snort meth on the regular, or whatever other self-destructive habit you choose for yourself. It's your right to be an idiot. But your rights stop the moment they infringe on my right to not part take in your self-destructive habits.
No, we don't need smoking rooms. No, it's not sufficient to ban smoking in public places. None of that has prevented me from coming in contact with nicotine or weed. Just ban it outright. It's really that simple.
Nicotine patches, weed cookies, etc. on the other hand? Those are fine. Go nuts. As long as you leave me out of it.
The more I read articles like this, the more I am convinced that philosophy, when it turns its eye towards mathematics and the sciences, is complete and utter nonsense, and a total waste of everyone's time.
Philosophical ramblings on scientific notions are akin to how GPT-2 models string together sensible sounding passages, but which upon closer inspection are actually devoid of any useful insight or meaning. Of course, in the act of stringing together esoteric words to make ourselves sound smart, by the rules of brownian motion, once in a blue moon, these ramblings accidentally cross over into formal logic proofs. That is, to put it plainly: we've blindly, or perhaps drunkenly, stumbled our way into the domain of mathematics and the sciences -- behold: Gödel's incompleteness theorems. The shining beacon in a sea of utter and complete nonsense.
Thanks, that was an interesting read. Too bad my parent comment was shadow banned. I think discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of philosophy applied to the sciences would have been far more interesting than what this post's article had to offer.
Really all QM says is that there's some probability distribution of an outcome, and you don't know what outcome occurred until you take a measurement.
For example, you could imagine a world simulator that uses probabilistic logic gates. Where with some probability a bit could be 0 or 1. Now you could say that the bit is in some superposition or is 0 in world A and 1 in world B, blah blah.
But that's dumb. Really, the bit is 0 or 1 with some probability of the universe simulator. And you don't know which, until you observe its value.